SHOP ASSISTANTS' PAY-

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17337, 8 December 1919, Page 6

SHOP ASSISTANTS' PAY-

THE WAGES OF JUNIORS. DEMAND FOR REDUCTION. ACTION BY EMPLOYERS. [BY TELEGRAPH — CORRESPONDENT.] CKRISTCHURCH, Saturday. At the Arbitration Court yesterday, arising out of a memorandum of the Court in the Auckland award, Mr. Cooper, for the employ ens, made an application to amend the Christchurch Retail Shop Assistants' Award, hardware, boots, and soft goods sections, in respect to the pay of junior assistants. The wages at present are: First year, £1 a week; seecond year, £1 7s 6d; third year, £1 15s j fourth year, £2 15s_; and fifth year, £3. The employers asked that the wages of a junior assistant in his fourth year should be reduced from £2 15s to £2 ss, and in the litth year from £3 to £2 15s, and further that there should' be provision for a sixth year junior assistant at £3 5s a week. The wages of females were left to the Court. Hie employers also asked that messenger boys should be exempted from the provisions of the award. Mr. Cooper said that but for the fact that the employers regarded the wages objected to as an obvious misprint, or a mistake in the award, which would be rectified by the Court when, 1 ' the fact was pointed out, the . employers would have j had to embark on a rather drastic policy I of dispensing with the services of many of the juniors who were not able to earn the award rate. At the present time shop assistants, in the drapery trade particularly, were taken on at an early age, and the result of the award was that a mere youth on entering his fourth year, was paid practically an adult's wage. If the present award wages were adhered to it . would certainly mean, in future, that few, if any, youths younger than 16 years would be employed, for there was no doubt that an older man of more mature appearance had a decided advantage as a salesman, especially in many lines in which female customers were more specially interested. Mr. Cooper also asked that an ambiguous clause with regard to messenger boys should be rectified. At present the Laoour Department held that messenger boys were shop assistants under the award, a position that was certainty not contemplated when the award was made. The application regarding wages was opposed by Mr. Martin, for the union, and he asked with reference to the messenger boys that, if the Court altered the award in the direction asked for it would see that the boys were fully protected in the matter of wages. As similar applications hav e to be heard from employers in other centres the Court reserved its decision.